Keith A. Smith v. D. Reagle, UTM Cochran, Lt. Cooperider, Ofc. Truax, Ofc. Blanton

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment in Keith A. Smith’s Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect action arising from an inmate’s throwing liquid feces at him. The court held that Smith could not show that the defendants had actual knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm, granted the motion to strike his unauthorized surreplies, and denied his motion to appoint counsel as moot.

Holdings

1. A prison official cannot be liable for deliberate indifference absent evidence that the official actually knew of a substantial risk of serious harm; generalized knowledge of prison violence or evidence that an official should have known of a threat is insufficient. The record showed no actual knowledge by Reagle, Reid, Truax, or Blanton.
2. Even assuming Lieutenant Cooperider knew of Jennings's threat, no reasonable jury could find that he had actual knowledge of a substantial and imminent risk of serious harm to Smith or deliberately disregarded such a risk.
3. Smith's voluntary decision to go unescorted to the range and work within throwing distance of Jennings's cell, despite being warned not to deal with Jennings, further defeated an inference that defendants were deliberately indifferent to the risk.
4. The court may strike an unauthorized filing, and under Local Rule 56-1(d) a summary-judgment surreply is permitted only to address new evidence or admissibility objections raised in the reply and must be filed within seven days.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendants were deliberately indifferent under the Eighth Amendment by failing to protect Smith from Jennings's attack.
2. Whether the evidence established that any defendant had actual knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm to Smith.
3. Whether defendants reasonably responded to any known risk despite the eventual attack.
4. Whether Smith's post-reply filings were unauthorized and untimely surreplies under Local Rule 56-1(d).
5. Whether Smith's motion to appoint counsel should be denied as moot after disposition of the case.

Disposition

other